Talk:Statue of Edward Colston/Archive 2

Inclusion of Historic England listing text

This article, in a quote box, carried the official Grade II listing description from Historic England. At least, it did until I removed it. Not surprisingly, it was restored rather than discussed, and now we have disruptive editors ignoring the WP:BRD cycle. Since both users have failed to honour their part of this important guideline, I will now start this here.

Firstly, it is not a quote (Historic England is an organisation and can't speak), so the very fact it is in a quote box is entirely wrong. Is there a name of the author, like there would be for Pevsner? Has anyone even tried the Pevsner guide to see if what HE are saying has come direct from Pevsner, since that is what they commonly do? Secondly, it is not usual for us to cut an entire listing description for a listed building and paste it into an article. For those wanting to visit the HE website, can, using the link we provide in the source. By all means, be selective and use certain words or phrases from the listing description, but not the entire thing. Cassianto^Talk 07:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The Historic England reasons for listing the structure - here - were quoted verbatim in the article until this edit today. The edit summary stated:"not a quote and for those wanting to see HE's listing description, can go to the HE website." Firstly, it was a direct quote. Secondly, the idea that readers should go to another website for basic information like this is unhelpful and frankly somewhat bizarre. Two editors (myself and, earlier, PamD) have reverted the change, but the editor concerned has continued to edit war with edit summaries like "use the bloody talk page and stop edit warring". The editor concerned has not raised their concerns on this point on this page, and is the only person to have made that edit, currently three times in 25 minutes. What do other editors think? Should the reasons for EH's designation be included in the article - and, if not, why not? Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I Am perfectly aware of HE and where their website is. A direct quote from who? Historic England? And where do you think Historic England get their information from? That is the argument for not putting it in a quote box - it is not a quote by them, but rather one of their primary sources. It is not a "quote", but a direct bloody lift of the entire listing description, which is not usual on WP or indeed necessary. Why the need to cut and paste the entire listing? Maybe we should do this for articles that are about listed buildings or structures? It is not "basic information" to cut and paste an entire listing description to use in one of our pages. Basic information would be to describe something and then cite it. Only, if it is pertinent enough, should we be using words or phrases from another website, but not the entire contents of it! Maybe we should just cut and paste from all the other websites this article uses and forget writing it in our own voice? In fact, let's just delete everything on our statue page and cut and paste from all our sources? Ridiculous. Cassianto^Talk 08:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

In that case, I suggest you rewrite it in your own voice, taking into account those elements such as "the resulting contrast of styles is handled with confidence", and the statue's "group value with other Bristol memorials", which are not otherwise covered in the article. If that relevant information is included as text, there is no need to include a verbatim quote - but it's up to the editor who removes the quote, to do the replacement rephrasing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Done. This is how better to layout this type of information. It can of course be added to, should you feel that there is anything else from the listing that should be included. But please note, this is about the architecture of the statue, and not about anything else. Cassianto^Talk 08:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I've added links to the other memorials - the drinking fountain does not have its own article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

But the target of 1893 Exhibition fountain (which I've now tweaked to redirect to the appropriate section of the list) gives useful information about it, so is worth linking. PamD 09:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, thanks for doing that. I think this looks much better. Cassianto^Talk 16:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• I've been busy doing other things since reverting the removal of the "Reasons for Designation" text, per "Bold, Revert, Discuss": now coming back to see this edit-warring by Cassianto. I reverted one bold move, with a reason: subsequent discussion could take place here, but I object to being accused of edit-warring. Cassianto boldly removed the text, I reverted. That is not edit-warring, it is the first two steps of BRD: the edit-warring began when Cassianto reverted my reverting. Unless Cassianto was reverting my bold addition of that listing text ... on 10 June, which I did because a previous edit summary had been "The source doesn't say artistic merit. It quite literally says "for the following principal reasons: * A handsome statue, erected in the late C19 to commemorate a late C17 figure; the resulting contrast of styles is handled with confidence * The statue is of particular historical interest, the subject being Edward Colston, Bristol's most famous philanthropist, now also noted for his involvement in the slave trade." Let's not WP:OR, please", so it seemed useful to inclue the complete wording given by NHE as the "Reasons for Designation". I still think it's useful to include that whole text verbatim, so that there's no chance of text being cherry-picked from it. PamD 09:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

  PamD, if WP:BRD goes in that order - Bold, Revert, Discuss - how was my revert "bold"? Cassianto^Talk 11:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Cassianto: You didn't discuss removing a long-standing piece of the article: that could be called bold. Are you suggesting that any swift reversion of an edit of yours is "edit-warring"? I don't think that's how most people would define it, and I think your edit summary was a personal attack on me. How was my edit "edit-warring"? PamD 14:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

PamD, no, you are wrong. There has to be a Bold edit for there to be a Revert. This is not a chicken and egg scenario, surely any fool can understand this? With regards to your "edit warring", you failed to discuss and reverted. That is the nucleus of an edit war, right there. The best thing for you to have done was to Discuss the Revert of the Bold edit. Please tell me if any of this becomes a little too technical.  Cassianto^Talk 16:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• I still think the article is the poorer for not including EH's other "reason for designation", their view of Colston's historical significance. Note  that this discussion has never been abit EH's description of the status, which may well be copied from Pevsner etc, but about EH's reasons for designation, their dispassionate assessment of the statue's significance, which seems worth including, in all its three points. PamD 22:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

AfD?

This article seems pointless Edward Colston is not that big, I don't see the need for this. Govvy (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree, it seems like this is well covered at Colston's article. Sam Walton (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

As I suggested on the Colston talk page, this article is necessary. The Colston article should be a biography of the man. This article should be about the statue, which is (still) a Grade II listed building, and obviously now has greater - and almost certainly lasting - cultural importance because of the controversy over it in past years and the events of today. So, I would strongly oppose deletion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree with above, although a lot of the content from the Statue section on that page should probably be moved to this page as appropriate. For context, here is the original discussion on the talk page that prompted the creation of this article. Doublah (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Why remove that content from the other page? The statue is of Colston, so content will be about Colston and what ever legacy content is provided. I still fail to see the need for content separation. Govvy (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

That article should be about the person, and not be dominated by discussion of the statue. The detailed history of the statue and the controversy should be over here, not there. Many listed buildings have their own (controversy-free) articles - this is a more notable, and more widely-discussed, listed building than many others. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The stand-alone statue article seems to be worthy of its own page, with more content being added here. Maybe wait 12/24hrs to see what state this page is at before going to AfD, if anyone thinks an AfD is still needed. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Typically articles on listed buildings are considered notable and survive AfD. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is Grade I are definately notable, Grade II* probably notable & Grade II if they are significant for others reasons! I suspect there will be enough reliable sources to expabd this article significant in the next day or two. It may already be worth adding more from the Historic England citation eg the dolphins on the pedestal being part of the Colston family crest?— Rod ^talk 19:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose deletion. Give the story time to run. No doubt there will be decisions to be made by local authorities and police as what action to take about the monument and whether legal proceedings should be taken. What about the history behind the erecting of the statue and its sculptor? Not been mentioned yet. Let it be as it were a biography of the memorial.Cloptonson (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

John Cassidy (artist) is wikilinked. The funders may be of more interest.— Rod ^talk 19:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. Subject is notable as a Grade II listed monument. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

This is just a discussion, not an actual AfD! I still find it odd that has a heritage category of history building and not Scheduled monument! Govvy (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Govvy, it has received coverage in its own right, unrelated to the person it is named after. It is a listed building, and after recent events, it has sufficient notability on its own. This article will be expanded with investigation, arrests and statements from the government and police, which would not be appropriate in that article. Not appropriate for an AfD. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 19:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrasinatingReader: What do you mean unrelated to the person it's named after? It has everything to do with the person it's named after! How illogical! :/ Govvy (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Govvy, the reason it was destroyed was, but the event itself is unrelated to the article on the person itself. The statue, and its destruction, happened in its own right. And, as mentioned, this is a developing situation; it would be unnecessary and unrelated clutter on the Edward Colston page. There's absolutely no reason the outcome of a police investigation, and further comments from politicians, as well as all other developments on this incident, should be added to a page of a person who has been dead for about 300 years. This page, of the statue in its own right, satisfies Wikipedia policies on notability and WP:GNG. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Completely incorrect, Black lives matters is related to persecution of the black people who in turn was brought to America by slave traders, in this round about circle of life, clearly the fact he was a slave trader is a clear indication for the desecration and removal of the statue. Do you really think this would of happened if it was a statue of Jesus? You are fighting against basic logic. Please don't start. Govvy (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Govvy, I'm not sure if you're missing the point or if you're just trying to have an argument. If you're looking for the latter, you're looking in the wrong place. You don't need to convince me that the individual the statue is named after was a slave trader and likely involved in horrible crimes. I understand why the statue was thrown into a river, but that's not the point here.

Your question is should this article be deleted and moved into Edward Colston. I've given you adequate reasons why, based on Wikipedia policy, this article's existence is permitted. You seemingly keep ignoring Wikipedia's policies, and the very question you've asked (which is whether this article should exist), and are instead trying to deflate to some kind of "racism is bad" argument, which is far from the matter here. This is a talk page for the article, not a general activism page. I agree racism is bad. How does this answer the matter here, which is whether this article should exist? It should, due to WP:N and WP:GNG, per the reasons I've outlined above.

The existence of this article doesn't mean we're condoning racism. It simply means we're giving a notable listed building its own article. A notable listed building which has been involved in a major event that has not occurred with another listed building statue in the UK, and is the subject of significant media coverage. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Much more of the history of the statue is availaable from Edward Colston and that statue by Roger Ball of Bristol Radical History Group - The statue was proposed by James Arrowsmith. Money (slowly) raised. The mayors speech at the unveiling largely ignored links to the slave trade.— Rod ^talk 20:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I would support a merge to Edward_Colston#Statue, but if there's going to be a separate article, the two pages should be more complementary to each other, perhaps with some of the main article content moved here. Reywas92^Talk 20:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Public art all over the U.S. have articles and are kept. This definitely meets notability standards, no question about it. Could still benefit from a section on its design/designer, symbols, etc. ɱ (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  Ɱ, Agree 100%, with a Description section and some critical reception from the arts world (if possible), this article could actually be close to GA consideration, IMO. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  Another Believer, I think it'd be nice to get this onto DYK, at least, and we're not far off meeting the "five fold expansion" requirement. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  ProcrasinatingReader, Agreed, but I don't deal with DYK these days, so someone else will need to nominate. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  Another Believer, I can perhaps make the nomination; I have few enough credits to be exempt from the QPQ requirement. We're at about a 3.5x expansion of the merge currently, so I guess we need another 1k words, within 4 days, or so to meet DYK requirements. If some critical arts reception can be found, that'd probably do it. And I guess we need a nice hook. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks like the 12hr test seems to have worked. Thanks to all involved in expanding this since my earlier comment. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is definitely notable separate from Colston himself. The statue has been a significant part of local Bristol politics for a long time, and yesterday's events amplify that.Wikiditm (talk) 09:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

OK to archive this discussion? Notability is clearly not an issue here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Lead photo

I suspect most people are coming to this article to read about the deposition of the statue. At present, we have an image of the statue as it was before Sunday. Should we change it to the photo of the empty plinth, or the photo of the statue about to fall into the water? Marnanel (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

No. This is about the monument, not its toppling. If "most people are coming to this article to read about the deposition of the statue", they will probably have already seen images or at least heard about its toppling. WP:RECENTISM applies. But an image of the empty plinth should be included, so I'll add that to the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreeing with the above. The statue is best represented by how it appeared prior to its removal. There is currently talk by the council of retrieving the statue and presenting it, complete with damage and graffiti, in a museum (likely M Shed). If and when this happens, it might be worth using a photo of the statue in the museum, but that is a discussion for the future. For now, the lead photo should stay as it is.Wikiditm (talk) 08:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Keep the image of the monument prior to being toppled. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Archiving

So who's good with the archive bots? I think we need to set it up here. Govvy (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Govvy, I agree, or, someone just needs to do a bit of manual cleanup. I've proposed archiving the notability discussion above, and there may be a few others to archive as well. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I came here from a request at Help talk:Archiving a talk page. I've set it up similar to Talk:Edward Colston, so that any sections with no comments after ten days will be archived. This can be adjusted later as necessary. Graham87 12:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

notability

Just wondering, why this wasn't notable enough for an article previously? It seems to have been discussed in the 1990's. Or was it notable enough, but no-one got around to doing it? Gah4 (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

It would've met notability before, plenty of sources and it was a listed building, just nobody got around to splitting it out of Edward Colston before the whole toppling fiasco. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

That is what I thought. Do all the other toppled statues now have articles, too? And the ones that there is interest in removing, but it hasn't happened yet? Do we need a category for toppled statues? Gah4 (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

OK I found List_of_monuments_and_memorials_removed_during_the_George_Floyd_protests more general than just statues. Gah4 (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Edmund Burke

This article in the Atlantic argues that the statue of Colston was erected specifically in response to another statue, the statue of Edmund Burke which was erected the year before. If that is the case, then that would be extremely important context for this article by situating both statues in the political context of the time. There is currently no mention of this fact. I'd rather not weigh in on a contentious debate that I have no particular knowledge of, so I thought to post it here for feedback first. In principle, more sources making this claim would be needed too. Francoisdjvr (talk) 08:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Interesting link - thank you. The article here certainly needs to refer to the We Are Bristol History Commission that is looking at what to do next. I've now added a paragraph. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC) PS: I've also added a sentence about the Colston statue's relationship to the Burke statue. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Lead proposal

This is the current version of the lead: Special:Permalink/1040717458. I propose this revision: Special:Permalink/1040717056, as I believe this structure (1) moves the most relevant information about the statue to the beginning (importantly, the fact that it no longer stands in public), (2) better summarizes the events of 2018 and 2019 in lead style, and (3) better follows MOS:AVOIDBOLD for a descriptive title. — Goszei (talk) 09:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Ghmyrtle User:ProcrastinatingReader Do you two have any thoughts on this? — Goszei (talk) 05:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me to respond here. This article is essentially about a structure that has been a listed building since 1977. Its title, as a listed structure, is "Statue of Edward Colston" (here) - even though the monument comprises both the effigy itself and the plinth. No-one disputes that the most interesting fact about the statue - and the reason the article was created - is that the effigy was pulled down in 2020 (though it still exists - so the present tense is correct). The article is not about the removal of the statue - it is about the listed monument as a whole, as well as what has happened to it. MOS:AVOIDBOLD says: "If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it. Instead, simply describe the subject in normal English, avoiding redundancy." But, that does not apply here - the article title can easily be incorporated in the opening sentence, as it has been until now. However, I do think that the fact that it was removed in 2020 should be in the opening paragraph, thus:

The statue of Edward Colston is a bronze statue of Bristol-born merchant Edward Colston (1636–1721), which was originally erected in The Centre in Bristol, England, but was removed in 2020. It was created in 1895 by the Irish sculptor John Cassidy and erected on a plinth of Portland stone. It was designated a Grade II listed structure in 1977.

Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Also pinging @DeFacto:, @PamD:, @Another Believer:, @Michael F 1967: - comments welcome. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, thanks for the ping. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Goszei, I do tend to prefer your version. It avoids the repetition of 'statue' and 'Edward Colston' in the first sentence, which I think resulted from the unnecessary attempt to try to keep the title of the article there for the sake of making it bold. I might move the name of the sculptor to later in the paragraph though, as the reasons for the statue's notability should come first in the lead, and he isn't part of that reason. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I like Ghmyrtle's suggestion above: I think that the reader expects a Wikipedia article to start "Xyz is/was a ...", and we should conform to this whenever reasonably possible, rather than start off with a longer sentence of more complicated structure. This article can be formatted that way without undue contortion: the repetition of "statue" is OK by me. I agree that the removal needs to be near the start as it is the source of the statue's notability. I would even suggest strengthening this by expanding to "removed by protestors in 2020" (as opposed to being removed to widen the road, or because it was in poor physical state, or after a calm decision about its desirability, all of which might be quite plausible). Or the "toppled, damaged and removed" wording used in the infobox. PamD 09:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

An alternative suggestion:

The statue of Edward Colston was originally erected in The Centre in Bristol, England, but was toppled, damaged and removed by protestors in 2020. It is a bronze statue of Bristol-born merchant Edward Colston (1636–1721), which was created in 1895 by the Irish sculptor John Cassidy and erected on a plinth of Portland stone. It was designated a Grade II listed structure in 1977.

Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The statue is technically not a proper noun and the lead sentence does read a bit awkwardly with the repeated 'statue' (more extreme example of the problem here). I don't really have a strong preference here either way, but initial thoughts are that I like Goszei's revision. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Another alternative then if we favour a reiteration of the article title:

A bronze statue of Edward Colston stood in The Centre in Bristol, England, from 1895 to 2020, when it was toppled, defaced, and pushed into Bristol Harbour during protests related to the Black Lives Matter movement. The 8 ft 8 in (2.64 m) statue of Bristol-born merchant Colston (1636–1721), by the Irish sculptor John Cassidy, stood on a plinth of Portland stone, which was covered in graffiti but remains in place. The statue was designated a Grade II listed structure in 1977.

This gives the reason for its notability up front and covers the most import content. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd prefer that to Goszei's wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, works well. PamD 16:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it reads kinda weirdly. We don't usually use an adjective/attributive noun before a bolded title, I think. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader; "A statue of Edward Colston made of bronze stood in The Centre..."? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Better suggestion, I think, but honestly not sure how it compares to the current lead. I dunno but I'm just not feeling the proposed variants with a bold title, for some reason, and even less-so since I made my initial comment here. I do feel the prose in Goszei's version reads sharper and more elegantly, even if it loses the bold title in lead. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Although I'd probably say move the part about the sculptor out, and split into two sentences. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Move "bronze" into the second sentence: "A statue of Edward Colston stood in The Centre in Bristol, England, from 1895 to 2020, when it was toppled, defaced, and pushed into Bristol Harbour during protests related to the Black Lives Matter movement. The 8 ft 8 in (2.64 m) bronze statue......" etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

That format works too (in terms of the bronze part). But I don't like the info on Colston being moved out. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by that? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I feel like the bolded part (from current opening sentence) is important to keep: The statue of Edward Colston is a bronze statue of Bristol-born merchant Edward Colston (1636–1721) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Even though the words "statue" and "Edward Colston" appear twice in the same sentence ("The statue of Edward Colston is a ... statue of... Edward Colston..."), and his details would be included in the second sentence? On style grounds, I can't consider that to be a serious objection. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

It's ultimately a WP:AVOIDBOLD issue: If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it. Instead, simply describe the subject in normal English, avoiding redundancy. (which I think applies here).

I think it's a bit recentism to push the background of Colston into the second sentence. The purpose of the statue and the person it's made for is important in the opening sentence IMO, more-so than the details of the toppling. The toppling resulted in an influx of news coverage, but not why the statue was notable. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

There is absolutely no valid reason to avoid bolding the article title, which can be included "easily and naturally" in the opening sentence. The only question is what words go with it. The statue was not especially notable before it was toppled - it did not have an article here, for instance - and the question is one of balance, over both describing the monument as it was and explaining the current position. As my previous note should have made clear, it is preposterous to start the article as ProcrastinatingReader suggests, with a sentence that boils down to "The statue of Edward Colston is a ... statue of... Edward Colston...". Can we have some other contributions, as in my view a single editor is now becoming an obstruction to a sensible resolution. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

It’s not “obstructing” anything simply to disagree with your preferred solution, just as you disagree with mine. I would prefer the current clumsy structure to moving valid information out of the first sentence; your desire to bold the title means neither the statue nor Colston can be introduced in the first sentence without repetition, which is not ideal. So I prefer either Goszei’s fix, and failing that IMO the current clumsy prose is better than shifting the information out. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, as I said above, I tend to prefer Goszei's version too over the current one. However, as some editors expressed a preference for a verbatim reiteration of the title to be in the first sentence, we tried to accommodate that and the mention of the main reason for the statue's notability (that it was attacked) in the first sentence. The details about Colston are, I thought, okay in the second sentence, being less import. I think the version you have now reverted struck a good compromise. -- DeFacto (talk). -- DeFacto (talk). 10:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Three possibilities

How should the lead of this article read? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

OK, so we seem to have three possible wordings. For clarity:

A: Current wording:

The statue of Edward Colston is a bronze statue of Bristol-born merchant Edward Colston (1636–1721), which was originally erected in The Centre in Bristol, England. It was created in 1895 by the Irish sculptor John Cassidy and erected on a plinth of Portland stone. It was designated a Grade II listed structure in 1977.

The statue has been subject to increasing controversy beginning in the 1990s, when Colston's prior reputation as a philanthropist came under scrutiny due to his involvement in the Atlantic slave trade. In 2018 a Bristol City Council project to add a second plaque to better contextualise the statue and summarise Colston's role in the slave trade resulted in an agreed wording and a cast plaque ready for installation. Its installation was vetoed in March 2019 by Bristol's mayor, Marvin Rees, who promised a rewording of the plaque which never materialised. On 7 June 2020, the statue was toppled, defaced, and pushed into Bristol Harbour during the George Floyd protests related to the Black Lives Matter movement. The plinth was also covered in graffiti, but remains in place. The statue was recovered from the harbour and put into storage by Bristol City Council on 11 June 2020, and put on museum exhibition in its graffitied state in June 2021. When the exhibit opened historian David Olusoga said that its recent history had transformed the statue from "a mediocre piece of late-Victorian public art" into "the most important artefact you could select in Britain if you wanted to tell the story of Britain's tortuous relationship with its role in the Atlantic slave trade."

B: Goszei's suggestion

A bronze statue of Bristol-born merchant Edward Colston (1636–1721) stood in The Centre in Bristol, England, from 1895 to 2020, when it was toppled, defaced, and pushed into Bristol Harbour during protests related to the Black Lives Matter movement. The 8 ft 8 in (2.64 m) statue, created by the Irish sculptor John Cassidy, stood on a plinth of Portland stone, which was covered in graffiti but remains in place.

The statue was designated a Grade II listed structure in 1977. It became subject to increasing controversy beginning in the 1990s, when Colston's prior reputation as a philanthropist came under scrutiny due to his involvement in the Atlantic slave trade. An effort in 2018 to add a second plaque to better contextualise the statue and summarise Colston's role in the slave trade resulted in an agreed wording and a cast plaque, but its installation was vetoed in 2019 by Bristol's mayor, Marvin Rees, who proposed a rewording which never materialised. After the statue was toppled by protesters on 7 June 2020 during George Floyd protests in the United Kingdom, it was recovered from the harbour and put into storage by the city council, and put on museum exhibition in its graffitied state in June 2021.

When the exhibit opened historian David Olusoga said that its recent history had transformed the statue from "a mediocre piece of late-Victorian public art" into "the most important artefact you could select in Britain if you wanted to tell the story of Britain's tortuous relationship with its role in the Atlantic slave trade."

C: My suggestion (slightly tweaked from earlier version)

A statue of Edward Colston stood in The Centre in Bristol, England, from 1895 to 2020, when it was toppled, defaced, and pushed into Bristol Harbour during the George Floyd protests related to the Black Lives Matter movement. The 8 ft 8 in (2.6 m) bronze statue of Bristol-born merchant Colston (1636–1721), by the Irish sculptor John Cassidy, stood on a plinth of Portland stone, which was covered in graffiti but remains in place.

The monument was designated a Grade II listed structure in 1977. It was subject to increasing controversy beginning in the 1990s, when Colston's earlier reputation as a philanthropist came under scrutiny due to his involvement in the Atlantic slave trade. In 2018 a Bristol City Council project to add a second plaque to better contextualise the statue and summarise Colston's role in the slave trade resulted in an agreed wording and a cast plaque, but its installation was vetoed in March 2019 by Bristol's mayor, Marvin Rees, who promised a rewording of the plaque which never materialised. After the statue was toppled on 7 June 2020, it was recovered from the harbour and placed in storage before being put on museum exhibition in its graffitied state in June 2021. When the exhibit opened, historian David Olusoga said that its recent history had transformed the statue from "a mediocre piece of late-Victorian public art" into "the most important artefact you could select in Britain if you wanted to tell the story of Britain's tortuous relationship with its role in the Atlantic slave trade."

Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

References

• I have edited my version in response to some of the feedback I saw in this discussion, along with some other changes. I rank the options B > C > A, though I would personally apply some of my second-paragraph changes to options C and A. — Goszei (talk) 09:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  Goszei, C, if the first sentence from the 2nd para is moved to be the last sentence of the first para, looks good to me. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  DeFacto - No real problem with that. I prefer C, obviously. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  PS: The brief preview for this article, which many readers will access, only shows the wording of the current first sentence ("The statue.. is..."), in the present tense, with the (old) photo of the statue in place. Many casual readers will feel misled by that, and the opening needs to clarify that the statue is not currently in place. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• B > A > C for me. C focuses too much on recent events for me. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  Just going to add by saying that I prefer the information provided by B which complies better with WP:AVOIDBOLD for a descriptive title. Option C uses the name of a person that isn't yet introduced to the reader (who is Edward Colston?), and the person isn't introduced until the second sentence, which is not ideal. It also has a better structure in general, for example by the separation of paragraph 2 and paragraph 3. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  "Statue of Edward Colston" is not an invented "descriptive title". It is the correct official name for the listed monument. Not placing the title in bold, as is usual, when it can clearly be used in an understandable way in the opening sentence, is unnecessary, and will be perceived by many (perhaps most) readers as unusual and extraordinary. The sentence with the Olusoga quote leads directly from the previous sentence, so there is no need for it to have a separate paragraph. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  ProcrastinatingReader, per MOS:LEAD, "The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences". The reason this subject is notable is the recent event - it was just another city-centre statue until then. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  It’s a grade II listed building that was subject to dispute for years. While obviously the toppling is a significant part of its history, dedicating like half the sentence to that and the BLM movement seems too much for me. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• I think C does it nicely, but I'd rework the listing to perhaps " was designated a Grade II listed structure", a little less blue, pipe instead of a redirect. There's no consistency as to how listing is mentioned/linked - compare a few Featured Articles (search for the word "listed" if interested): Bramall Hall, Belton House, Buckingham Palace, and Castell Coch (wordy but unlinked!). PamD 11:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I started this as an RfC. Doesn't necessarily have to last 30 days but to get some outside comments, particularly as we've had difficulties hashing out the structure of the lead in the past (my first thought was to post to a noticeboard, but no noticeboard seems obvious here). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• A modified/cut The article is ostensibly about a statue, which was recently controversially toppled, it isn't about the recent toppling of a controversial statue, which B & C seem to be trying to do! Making it unduly about the toppling is a bit WP:COATRACK-y. Even A is needlessly verbose, and gives too much purely bureaucratic detail, but fails to identify significant info, such as why the second plaque was never fitted. A sentence like The statue has been subject to increasing controversy beginning in the 1990s, when Colston's prior reputation as a philanthropist came under scrutiny due to his involvement in the Atlantic slave trade - could easily become "The statue has been increasingly controversial since the 1990s, when Colston's reputation came under scrutiny due to his involvement in the Atlantic slave trade. - Incidentally, has the statue been subjected to controversy, isn't the statue the subject of controversy? Much of the subsequent text is similarly fairly verbose, imparting little real info. My guess is that maybe 1/3 could be lost easily. Pincrete (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• A Current is good. I think the statues brief history shouldn't be overiden by recent events, though they obviously should be discussed, as additional rather than replacement text. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• C > B > A as they stand, though details could be improved. The statue is now most notable for being toppled, so goes first, and C keeps standard article wording -- starting with the subject title. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 22:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  The statue is now most notable for being toppled - then write an article about the toppling. It is reasonable for a reader to expect that an article titled 'statue' should focus on the statue, not WP:COATRACKing another, tangential topic - the protests. There will still be people who will want to know what was at the centre of all this 'sound and fury', rather than about the 'sound and fury' itself. Pincrete (talk) 07:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• A per Pincrete.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
• B has the best a structure, I think: a paragraph each for general information, history and significance. The history paragraph should begin in 1895 rather than with listing in 1977. I agree with PamD and Pincrete's suggestions for rephrasing. "exhibit" (in the context in which it appears) should be "exhibition", per WP:ENGVAR, and "put on museum exhibition" isn't very idiomatic. "Bristol-born merchant Edward Colston" and "historian David Olusoga" have false titles, but this is avoided for "the Irish sculptor John Cassidy"; the article needs to make its mind up whether to use them or not. (My preference would be against.) Ham II (talk) 11:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Legal consequences

Rather than a section of "Criminal charges", followed by "Subsequent events". I would suggest "Criminal charges and trial" either as the last entry in "Toppling and removal after "Subsequent events", or as the last subsection of "Subsequent events". The trial and its result will be an important part of the narrative. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

"Not notable as art"

I had appended "not notable as public art" to the first paragraph. This was reverted; in hindsight it is perhaps unnecessary as the introduction already describes the statue itself as "a mediocre piece of late-Victorian public art". Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I think that "not notable as public art" is unnecessary (and unsourced) opinion, and appears to contravene the reasons for listing:

The statue of Edward Colston is designated at Grade II for the following principal reasons: * A handsome statue, erected in the late C19 to commemorate a late C17 figure; the resulting contrast of styles is handled with confidence * The statue is of particular historical interest, the subject being Edward Colston, Bristol's most famous philanthropist, now also noted for his involvement in the slave trade. * Group value with other Bristol memorials: a statue of Edmund Burke, the Cenotaph, and a drinking fountain commemorating the Industrial and Fine Art Exhibition of 1893

Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Pol098: What you did was very opinionated and simply breaking the WP:OR code. Govvy (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

It didn't have a Wikipedia article (a sign of notability) until it was pulled down. And the intro already gives the opinion "a mediocre piece of late-Victorian public art", so my comment was unnecessary. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Controversy (Second plaque)

This section of the article talks about criticism of the Society of Merchant Venturers for the rewording, without explaining that they were involved in rewording the plaque in the first place. It does mention a former curator; "This wording was edited by a former curator at the Bristol Museum and Art Gallery". And in this already linked reference (https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/row-breaks-out-merchant-venturer-1925896) it explains he is a Merchant Venturer.

I think this wikipedia article should update that sentence about the former curator to say "This wording was edited by a Merchant Venturer and former curator at the Bristol Museum and Art Gallery".

I also question whether it may be appropriate to also include the name the Former curator/Merchant Venturer in this article, as many others involved in the second plaque section are mentioned by name, and it seems odd that this person is not mentioned by name despite their significant involvement. rufioh^talk_sign 18:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Your proposal seems entirely reasonable. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)